Vilsack not seeking DNC chairmanship. Simon Rosenburg has the momentum.

[fujiyama]

Alright, well it looks like Vilsack isn't interested.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=1&u=/ap/20041122/ap_on_el_ge/democrats_vilsack
----------------------------------------------------------------
DES MOINES, Iowa - Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack said Monday that he will not seek the chairmanship of the Democratic Party. "These challenges and opportunities require more time than I felt I could share," Vilsack said in a statement. "As a result I will not be a candidate for DNC chairman."
----------------------------------------------------------------

And it looks like Simon Rosenburg has the 'mo'.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/11/22/11029/586
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Rosenberg, who currently heads the New Democrat Network, is becoming the favorite to become the next chairman of the DNC. But the former Clintonite also has a strong following among "outside" Democrats--activists who came to the party via former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and other Internet voters who read the blogs. Rosenberg's straight talk about what the party needs to do has been remarkably consistent and his 527's effort to win Hispanic voters was more successful than expected. Also in his favor: He's a tireless fundraiser.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

[GainesT1958]

1. He'd be a good choice...

A centrist Dem who's clearly NOT like Al From or the hard-core DLCers, and who sought to strengthen relations with Howard Dean during the primaries. He also values the role of the blogosphere in making the Party stronger--and more attentive to grassroots organizing.

B-)

[fujiyama]

2. Yeah from what I heard

he doesn't sound all that bad. Hispanic outreach, trying to build briges with Dean, and an interest in internet fundraising and the blogosphere...Hmmm, I personally would prefer Dean, but Rosenburg just may be the compromise candidate the party needs.

[punpirate]

3. "Tireless fundraiser" =

In the pocket of multinational corps, who expect a level of access for all those funds which ordinary citizens do not ever get.

The "New Democrats" are like "New Labour." As long as the DNC chooses to be the imitator of the Republicans of yesteryear, ordinary people will continue to lose out, no matter who's in power (and it's a lot more likely that the Democrats will continue to be the minority party in a milieu which scorns and ignores the minority party).

If this Democratic trend of kissing the fat, pink asses of CEOs continues, this country remains on the path to self-destruction. :grr:

[Rowdyboy]

4. So, we will win elections without any money by.....?

Suggestions?

Short of armed revolution, I don't see anyway around raising money, but I welcome your thoughts.

Perhaps, maybe, the networks will recognize our virtue and give us free time.....Ya think?

[punpirate]

8. Democrats continue to lose...

... because they seek favor from the people who are trading access for political contributions.

That does not include the poor.

The answer is truly effective, publicly-funded elections. How that is accomplished when the Repugs are running things is a much more difficult question, and one I'm not prepared to answer fully. However, one thing is certain--as long as the Democrats continue to vote in favor of business interests and ignore the interests of the poor and the middle class, they're going to continue to lose.

This most recent election should have been a wake-up call for the DNC, and, instead, it's apparently a sign to them that they should do a lot more of the same.

But, in the meantime, here's a little simple math. Democratic candidates spent about a billion dollars on television and radio advertising in the 2004 election, and lost, overall. Lost seats in the Senate, lost seats in the House, have apparently lost the Presidency (barring some revelations about voting fraud yet to be solidly based in fact). There were some gains (such as in the Colorado state legislature, for example), but the direction of the country is largely determined by federal seats. Therefore, money wasn't at issue. Message was. Despite an improved turnout from 2000, there was no compelling move on the part of the electorate to the Democrats. Why? There are another forty to fifty million potential voters out there who simply don't respond to anything the Democrats have to say. Why? Because the Democrats, more often than not, vote with the Republicans, and in favor of business, often out of a professed belief in bipartisanship, even when the current crop of Repug thugs are giving away the government to powerful business interests. If the Democratic message were resonant in the electorate at large, what would it take to provide equivalent funding to what the Democrats received this year? About $7 each from 100 million voters, plus the public funds available.

That's it in a nutshell. Current Democrats aren't worth seven bucks to a substantial portion of the population, in large part, because the votes of Democratic politicians have drifted so far from the interests of their natural constituency.

The Democratic leadership is trying its best to deny a fundamental truth--one can't serve two masters. They can't emulate the methods of the Republicans without becoming like them, and can't provoke the disenfranchised to vote without actually serving that constituency, rather than moneyed interests. That's one of the reasons why we have an even more solid Republican control of government after this election.

It's an unpleasant fact, but it's no less a fact for its unpleasantness.

Cheers.

[Teaser]

5. You know nothing about the NDN.

Admit it, you've never heard of them before now.

[punpirate]

6. The "New Democrats"...

... are the latest incarnation of the DLC. Look at their website. Look at who finances them.

And, yes, I know who they are. And so do you.

On edit, for the sake of reference:

http://www.ndol.org/

Note the header on the above page. It says, "The Democratic Leadership Committee's Online Community."

So, who, really, are the "New Democrats" except the DLC in a new suit of clothes?

Cheers.

[Califooyah Operative]

7. i though vilsack had the jomentom, we all know who really has the momentom

it comes down to are the people going to pick the head of the dnc, or are the interest groups within the party going to nominate their choice.

[Julien Sorel]

9. I like Rosenberg.

And I love the ads the NDN put together targeting the hispanic community -- I thought they were the best things out there from either party, plus they are aimed at the most important emerging voting bloc in the country. Rosenberg seems like a forward thinker, a guy with vision, and no baggage at all.